|
|
| Decatur Jones' Cornett Changes His Mind: SCO's Chances With a Jury "Less Favorable" in IBM Case |
 |
|
Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT
|
Decatur Jones' Dion Cornett, who originally wrote that he thought SCO had a good chance of a partial judgment in the SCO v. IBM lawsuit, if the trial went to a jury, has now altered his view and rates SCO's chances with a jury less favorably. He changed his mind based on reading SCO's claim, in its Answer to IBM's 2nd Amended Counterclaims, that it did not know about IBM's work with Linux during Project Monterey, a claim which Groklaw debunked last week. Cornett writes, in the May 10th "Open Source Wall Street," that he believes SCO's odds with a jury have worsened, because of losing credibility from making such a claim, and because it simplifies IBM's story to the jury: "SCOX jury dynamics less favorable In a court filing early last week, SCOX claimed that it did not know that IBM was involved in Linux during work on Project Monterey, despite issuing several joint Linux press releases. Beyond the loss of credibility, we believe this set of facts may provide IBM with ammunition should the SCO v IBM lawsuit reach a jury. As early as our initiating coverage report, we argued that SCOX may win a partial judgment during the jury phase given the unpredictability of our jury system and the relative simplicity of SCOX’s claims (big company takes little local company’s purchased IP, lines of code are the same...). By contrast, IBM’s defense requires complex explanations of the UNIX family tree, derivative works, and esoteric aspects of contract law. However, SCOX’s apparent inconsistency may allow IBM to argue that SCOX was simply out-competed by companies, such as RHAT and SuSE, that it once did press releases with and now in bitterness is looking for deep pockets to sue." In SCO's Answer to IBM's 2nd Amended Counterclaims, it said:
"42. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 42, but alleges that SCO was unaware of IBM's Linux-related investment prior to its formal announcements thereof, and further alleges that IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose to SCO such Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux before and during Project Monterey."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Lastaii on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
| Perhaps that explains SCOX's tanking today... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO's Chances With a Jury "Less Favorable" in IBM Case - Authored by: BigFire on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Nope... - Authored by: ray08 on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- SCO's Chances With a Jury "Less Favorable" in IBM Case - Authored by: k12linux on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- Tanking... - Authored by: Ed L. on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- Tanking... - Authored by: fLameDogg on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Tanking... - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:27 AM EDT
- Tanking... - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:29 AM EDT
- Tanking... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- DJones views the case wrong - Authored by: dougp25 on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:27 PM EDT
- SCO's Chances With a Jury "Less Favorable" in IBM Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- SCO's Chances With a Jury "Less Favorable" in IBM Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 07:24 PM EDT
- SCO's Chances With a Jury "Less Favorable" in IBM Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- SCO's Chances With a Jury "Less Favorable" in IBM Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ray08 on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
"because of losing credibility from making such a claim"
In other words, they were caught lying, again[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Observer on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
| Well, after months and months of this case getting more and more convoluted,
murky and just plain insane, things are finally starting to simplify: "SCO
couldn't keep up with its competitors, and is now simply trying to find deep
pockets it can sue." Add to that the fact that SCO stock closed under $5,
and it's starting to feel like a breath of fresh air!
---
The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryL on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
| "42. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 42, but alleges that SCO was unaware
of IBM's Linux-related investment prior to its formal announcements thereof, and
further alleges that IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose to SCO such
Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux before and
during Project Monterey."
Is that SCO as in Santa Cruz Operation or SCO
"Stupid Caldera Outfit"???
In either case I think the have stretched their
believability too far - they would have had to be deaf, blind and locked in a
deep dungeon NOT to have seen something about IBM's interests in
Linux. ---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not
necessarily reflect those of any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
Won't make it through the wash cycle!
Martha Stewart.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
There is the right to a jury, but do you have to use one?
On a case like this, it seems like it might make sens for IBM to not use a jury,
so SCO couldn't depend on foolish people on the jury to give it something the
judge wouldn't.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
Don't know if anyone has been watching but SCOX stock price dropped by almost a
dollar today alone. Now down below $5.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Stock effect? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
I vaguely remember that the OJ Simpson trial had a big problem getting a jury as
so many people had seen the chase on telly, etc. It was highlighted by the
"Vicar of Dibley" series where after one of the episodes Geradine Granger (GG)
tries this joke on Alice (A):
GG: Knock, Knock
A: Who's
there
GG: OJ Simpson
A: OJ Simpson who?
GG: You're on the jury. (or
something similar)
Would SCO really expect to be able to find a jury
both agreeable to them and IBM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
I searched high and low and with Google and can not find out where to get Dion
Cornett's newsletter. Anyone know where to find it or how to get it?
Thanks!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pug Majere on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
I think everyone is misreading what SCO wrote:
In SCO's Answer to
IBM's 2nd Amended Counterclaims, it said:
"42. Admits the
allegations of Paragraph 42, but alleges that SCO was unaware of IBM's
Linux-related investment prior to its formal announcements thereof, and further
alleges that IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose to SCO such
Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux before and
during Project Monterey."
SCO claims that they
were not made aware of IBM's Linux related investments, by IBM before IBM's
formal announcements.
In other words, there was no phonecall from IBM to SCO
that included the phrase, "By the way, we are planning on putting a lot of
effort into Linux."
That doesn't mean that SCO wasn't paying attention to
the formal announcements, of course.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tizan on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
Will it not be better that this case goes to a jury and have a full legal
conclusion
published even if it takes 1 more year, instead of just SCO going poof ?
If SCO goes poof...will people like Darl still be responsible for dragging
honest
linux developers names and companies in the mud as being just code thief ?
Who gets the jail time then if there is no SCO ?
---
tizan: Knowledge is shared[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
In two recent postings, I suggested to EU readers of Groklaw to mail MEPs and
candidates/parties about the issue of software patents and ask for their points
of view.
I did so and by now received some answers from candidates or their staff. My
impression: all of them were upset about the European Council ignoring the
decisions of the EP, and they promised to fight for a revised version of the
patents directive. Of course, they all want my vote and will probably promise
*everything* to get it, but if all of us make clear what is at stake here, the
next EP could be a strong partner.
---
C.S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: constant peers on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
SEC
COMPLAINT
http://users.rcn.com/srstites/jacuse/sec.complaint.v4.html
Hidden gem in the thread of
"URLs and other links here
please" authored by : Anonymous
Excerpt: (may 9 2004)
"The SCO attempt to sell Linux licenses has all of the
earmarks of an extortion racket. From a marketing
viewpoint
such an extortion campaign is economic suicide.
No Linux user
will pay SCO a Linux licensing fee based on
SCO's extremely
flimsy claims to owning Linux.
This strategy of trying to
extort money from Linux users
by threatening to launch
expensive lawsuits does not make
any economic sense from SCO's
viewpoint unless SCO has
been promised large amounts of money
by Microsoft for
harassing companies that use or sell Linux in
line with
the Microsoft strategy that Mike Anderer
announced.
So I conclude that Microsoft
has secretly and illegally
invested money in SCO equity. No
sophisticated investor
would seriously consider buying equity
in SCO's lawsuit
campaign against Linux because the SCO lawsuit
strategy is
a guarenteed loss to SCO and its investors.
Therefore any
sophisticated investor would only be interested
in
investing in SCO if Microsoft compensated the investor for
doing so. Any efforts by Microsoft and the nominal
investors to hide the fact that money invested in SCO
originated from Microsoft is illegal money laundering."
IMHO Most impressive
is the unfolding of the arguments
(with links), the indications of the
ongoing fraud, plus
additional lists with figures on the SCO insider
sales and
the insider stock options exercise advantages. Surely
things will get added to this and polished.
---
yes
mind, it does matter. yes matter, do mind [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lifewish on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
"As early as our initiating coverage report, we argued that SCOX may win a
partial judgment during the jury phase given the unpredictability of our jury
system and the relative simplicity of SCOX’s claims (big company takes little
local company’s purchased IP, lines of code are the same...). By contrast, IBM’s
defense requires complex explanations of the UNIX family tree, derivative works,
and esoteric aspects of contract law."
I'm surprised they think it's complex. To me it sounds like:
"Some of your code is our code"
"Really? Which code?"
"Um... a few million dollars worth"
"Riiiiight... which code"
"Care to discuss this in court?"
"Sure"
"Erm... you wouldn't just like to buy us out?"
"No thanks, think I'll pass"
"Er..."
---
------------------
"Diplomacy: the art of saying 'Nice doggy' until you can find a stick" - Wynn
Catlin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jfabermit on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
IANAL, but even I have to question their response in paragraph 42 on lawyerly
grounds, because it says way too much. Why the heck would you ever divulge what
will obviously be part of your legal argument in a forum where you are not
required to do so?!?
Look at IBM's response, and they will happily deny anything they possibly can in
as few words as possible (SCO is a Delaware corporation with principal place of
business in Utah). To put it mildly, they play things close to the vest,
because they can, and they should. SCO, on the other hand, makes a questionable
claim, and does so voluntarily. It's ridiculous. Pardon the image, but I've
heard of suicide by police officer, where people bait the police into killing
them...this is like corporate suicide by legal team.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
Darl says he wants to get dragged into Utah state court, so he can show Novell
*intended* to transfer copyrights to SCOG? His argument? "current"
officers at Novell weren't in the negotiations, so couldn't know what was
intended.
BUT! Darl wasn't part of SCO: so how does he know what *THEY* intended,
especially when they never even bothered to ask for copyrights, and SCOG didn't
even exist!? The SCO execs are gone too, replaced with Caldera / Canopy / SCOG
people of dubious [fill in favorite term here].
So how is this any different?
Or is this yet another example of lunacy by SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:19 AM EDT |
Along with the new CFO Bert
Young
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040421102117962 (read the
comments), there are two people that we will listen carrefully
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=132475 ,(follow the thread) when the all
things come in front of a jury.
Scog Pizza and garbage connection ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
Perhaps it would be useful to compile a list of SCO statements and legal
claims, and show how they contradict themselves or reality... maybe in table
form.
For example, here's one that's been bugging me for a few
weeks.
From a 2002 Darl interview
(ZDNet)
The first four weeks on the job I've spent a
lot of time looking for value points, leverage points, if you will, in terms of
"what do we do with this company." I just sent out a letter to shareholders a
couple of days ago--I won't bore you with all the details--but there are a
couple of interesting things in there that I found out about Caldera that I
didn't know before. One, the intellectual properties that we hold--we own SVRx,
UnixWare, SCO Unix--in terms of the Unix timeline, the thread that runs through
the middle of these is really SVRx. All of the subsequent Unix licensing that
happened broke off from that. We own all that intellectual property
From Darl's salon.com infomercial where he talks about
what attracted him to join "SCO"(Groklaw)
The attraction point was very simple... UNIX... is owned by the
SCO group. It has a lot of value and that was really the key point that
attracted me to join the company.
In one interview, Darl
says that he joined "Caldera," and found out after he joined that they "owned"
SVRx and "all of the subsequent Unix licensing that happened broke off from
that. We own all that intellectual property." In another, he says he was
attracted to join "S.C.O." (he pronounces it "ess-see-oh") because it owned
UNIX.
Which was it Darl?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:05 AM EDT |
Wow, he's certainly been watching this case like a hawk, hasn't he?
What worth is his analysis if he's getting all of his "facts" from SCO
HQ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
It is less favorable because the case is now cast as MS-SCO v. IBM. In this
posture, IBM is the little guy.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
